Jim, complicated subject. The bicameral mind, as theorized by JJ, is a pre-conscious mind, devoid of consciousness as we define it. I suspect from your questions that you haven't read JJ's work. Briefly,

-- No, the theory of bicameral mind has nothing to do with "a continuation of the ability to control oneself and one's environment."

-- The concept/theory explains how human consciousness evolved from pre-consciousness, not a "semi-conscious mentality," and it does not project anything similar to a "future fully conscious mentality."

-- Not sure what you mean by, "Is Bicameral 'development' a function of analog models and useful principles as a means of creating mind space, moving the human mentality from bicameralism to consciousness?"

Many of these questions would be quickly answered by reading Jaynes' major work. The issues are complex enough that they don't lend themselves to short answers that you'd find satisfactory. An in-depth read would prove well worth your time.

I have read the book. Maybe I did not phrase my questions clear enough.

pcg wrote:

--No, the theory of bicameral mind has nothing to do with "a continuation of the ability to control oneself and one's environment."

I understood that bicameral minds were subject to their automatic response system. The more automatic a person is, the less authoritative that person is. It is possible that conscious people seemed like gods to unconscious people.

pcg wrote:

--The concept/theory explains how human consciousness evolved from pre-consciousness, not a "semi-conscious mentality," and it does not project anything similar to a "future fully conscious mentality."

Automatizing reactions is natural for people to do simply to conserve energy. We spend most of our time recalling information instead of constantly being aware. So the correct statement is being consciously aware is not being automatic.